I Think the cause of these controversies is that the modern taxonomic system
hide three different systems: The Linnean, the Darwinian and the Hennigian.
The Linnean was only a method of organization, without . The Darwinian one
was linked to Evolution concept and later to Genetics. These three systems
was being "piled up". So, Darwinian taxonomy inherited Linnean taxa; and
Hennigian inherited Darwinian taxa. We have to add a fourth system, the
"Pre-Linnean", that include concepts too old, like Pisces or Aves, that
exists in all languages over the world.
Joao SL
Rio
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Kinman <kinman@hotmail.com>
To: <sarima@friesen.net>
Cc: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 1:37 PM
Subject: a universal Reptilia (ending the cladisto-eclectic war)
> Stanley,
> Amen to a traditional (but modified) Reptilia. I couldn't agree
more.
> However, I do understand the cladists' position, and that is why (in
> The Kinman System, 1994) I insist on rendering such groups
"informationally"
> holophyletic. Two simple markers, {{Aves}} and {{Mammmalia}}, placed
> respectively next to Saurischiformes and Therapsiformes, and the same
> markers placed at family level within classifications of saurischians and
> therapsids. If we knew the sister groups of mammals and birds at the
> generic level, we could place such markers down to generic level (but this
> is tricky at best for mammals, and certainly not possible for birds).
More
> fossils will make this possible in the future.
> Once traditional eclecticists (Mayr School) and traditional cladists
> (Hennig School) stop fighting long enough to realize that a middle ground
> approach is not only possible, but actually superior to either traditional
> system of classification, the classification war will wind down. If the
> Hatfields and McCoys can finally make peace, so can the eclecticists and
> cladists. What a waste of talent and energy we have seen in the last 30
> years.
> Tudge's formal recognition of both a Reptilia and "Reptilia" is
> ambiguous and not a true intermediate position. I haven't seen his work,
> but it sounds like a wishy-washy compromise that will satisfy noone.
> A single "semi-paraphyletic" Reptilia is far superior----paraphyletic
> in the traditional sense, but made complete (holophyletic) by the addition
> of the two Kinman markers {{Aves}} and {{Mammalia}}. The Kinman System is
> designed to be a single universally acceptable classification methodology,
> combining both genealogy and divergence "in a single classification in
such
> a way that both are retrievable." That is what David Hull said we needed,
> in his 1979 paper ("The Limits of Cladism", Syst. Zool., 28:416-440).
> ------Ken Kinman
> ******************************************************
> >From: Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net>
> >Reply-To: sarima@friesen.net
> >To: philidor11@snet.net
> >CC: "Dinosaur ListServer" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Another Branch of the Family
> >Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:34:48 -0700
> >
> >At 06:22 PM 6/18/00 -0400, philidor11 wrote:
> >>From a review by W. Ford Doolittle of the book by Colin Tudge, Sunday
> >>(6/18) New York Times Book Review Section:
> >> Either we call birds reptiles or
> >> we cannot have such a group as the class Reptilia, because it
> >>spawned
> >> creatures (in fact two whole classes, Aves and Mammalia) that
> >>we don't
> >> call reptiles. Disputes about this still rage in the academic
> >> literature because there are still those who hold that
> >>similarity, if
> >> strong enough, should trump relationship,
> >
> >I find this wording of the issue to be prejudicial and, IMHO,
> >inaccurate. Allowing paraphyletic groups does NOT override
relationships,
> >and no modern taxonomist that I know of would tolerate a truly
polyphyletic
> >group, no matter how great the similarity. (A paraphyletic group is
still
> >a closed figure with regard to the evolutionary tree, so relationships
> >still dominate).
> >
> >What IS suggested is that similarity should be a strong *secondary*
factor
> >in determining classification. Nobody since the demise of Numerical
> >Taxonomy has seriously supported any other position.
> >
> >> that classification is not
> >> just about genealogy.
> >
> >This, however, is what the real issue is.
> >
> >> Tudge explicates the cladist doctrine quite clearly, while
> >>personally
> >> adopting an intermediate position (suggesting that we
> >>simultaneously
> >> recognize a Reptilia that includes mammals and birds and a
> >> ''Reptilia'' that doesn't, and would be what most people mean
> >>by
> >> reptiles). This is the kind of casual ambiguity with which
most
> >>of us
> >> are already comfortable -- without the typographical
trickery.
> >>I doubt
> >> that Tudge's terminology will be embraced by professionals.
> >
> >So do I. I would use Reptilia for a paraphyletic grouping closely
> >corresponding to its classical scope.
> >
> >--------------
> >May the peace of God be with you. sarima@ix.netcom.com
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>